Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh vs State Of U.P. on 9 September, 2022
Bench: Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Judgment Reserved Reserved On : 01.09.2022
Delivered On: 09.09.2022
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 78 of 2002
Appellant :- Kamlesh
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Rishad Murtaza
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
1. Present criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2002, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Sitapur in S.T. No.19 of 1997, arising out of Case Crime No.2/1996, under Section 307/34 IPC, Police Station Mishrikh, District Sitapur. By the impugned judgment and order, appellant Kamlesh has been convicted for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, has submitted that appellant is innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. There was a civil dispute between the parties. The injury received by injured persons were not fatal to their life. There was no eye witness account of the occurrence. Appellant and complainant belong to the same village and are neighbours. The prosecution was not able to prove its case against the appellant but the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant and sentenced the appellant. There is no criminal history against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 01.01.1996. 26 years have gone by. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the appellant in jail after a long gap. Appellant was in jail for 01 and half month, therefore, he is pressing the appeal only in respect of the sentencing. He is not disputing the order of conviction. However, he prays for modification of order of sentence for the period already undergone, as the appellant has already confined in jail for 05 months.
3. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant either before the occurrence or subsequent to the occurrence has no criminal history. He is civilized citizen and intending to give his lawful contribution to the society.
4. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is ample evidence as well as testimony of eye account witness which gets support by medical report also. To base the conviction, learned A.G.A. has further submitted that he has no objection if the Court in view of the prayer so made by learned counsel for the appellant considers the mitigating circumstances.
5. I have heard the arguments of rival sides and perused the record.
6. The provisions of Cr.P.C. has not given any straitjacket formula for sentencing. According to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts, the sentence for the offence depends on so many factors like circumstances for commission of crime, character, antecedents of offenders, use of weapon, mode of crime, mental status and the age of offender. The socio economic condition also plays a vital role. In the case of B.G. Goswami vs. State of Delhi Administration 1973 AIR 1457, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations, which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act, which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole.
Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after 7 years of the annoy and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs- 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same."
7. It can be inferred that object for sentencing an accused should be reformative.
8. Appellant has undergone one and half month in jail. Approximately 26 years have gone by from the date of occurrence; no fruitful purpose will be served to send him jail after a long time interval. Learned A.G.A. could not show any criminal antecedent either prior or after the occurrence. Appellant, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, is remorseful of his conduct. He has feeling of transformation in him. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant is allowed.
9. Consequently, without interfering in the order of conviction, the sentencing is modified to the period already undergone.
10. Since the court is taking a lenient view by altering the sentence awarded by the trial court, therefore, it will be just and proper to award appropriate compensation to the injured persons. The appellant shall pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation, which shall be paid to the injured persons equally. If injured persons are not alive, then in that case the aforesaid amount of compensation shall be paid to the legal representatives of injured persons.
11. Accordingly, the appellant shall deposit in trial court the amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/- within a period of two months from today and the trial court will disburse the aforesaid deposited amount to the injured persons or their legal representatives, as the case may be. In case the appellant fails to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation, then in that case the trial court shall proceed to recover the aforesaid amount from the appellant in accordance with law.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Office is directed to send the record along with a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance.
(Narendra Kumar Johari, J.)
Lucknow :
Date : September 9, 2022
ML/-
Whether the order is speaking:- Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable:- Yes/No
